| Revision as of 18:33, 26 January 2008 editMaximillion Pegasus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,182 edits →Thank you: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:40, 26 January 2008 edit undoAngie Y. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,983 edits →Thank you: Leave us alone!!Next edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| Ok. Thank you. ]]] 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | Ok. Thank you. ]]] 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Leave us alone! == | |||
| Leave me and ] alone! We're only trying to make the ] article better and longer, and you could messing up our work! So I strongly suggest that you leave the edits we write alone! Oh, and for the record, he is NOT a sockpuppet NOT meatpuppet! He is a friend that is trying to protect me from jerks like you! ] (]) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:40, 26 January 2008
 | If you leave a message here, I'll reply on your talk page. Oh, and remember, all glory to the Hypnotoad! |
- Welcome!
Hello The Rogue Penguin/Archive8, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial* How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Warning,
You Have Violated the 3RR rule. Try to hang low for awhile :P Compwhiz II(Contribs) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct! Also the page is now in RPP, just letting you know that help is on the way(Sorta...). Good Luck, Compwhiz II(Contribs) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Troll?
Please Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. I would not have written several essays on Misplaced Pages policy or put forth the constructive edits that I have if I was simply a troll. A total lack of clarification on WP:IAR has harmed Misplaced Pages. Making it an "essay" diminishes it, such that nobody will read it. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. It is not my intent to revert more than three times. And if I am successful, it would substantially help Misplaced Pages. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you protect the page in response to a content dispute, in an article you're involved in editing?! Or are you, yourself, ignoring all rules? If so, how is it justifiable for you to violate admin policy, call me a troll in bad faith, all in the name of "upholding policy"? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ack! Pardon me! 
☯ Zenwhat (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:No credential policy has been renamed WP:There is no credential policy to avoid giving it an "aura of support" for the idea that credentials should not be used. If the article is my opinion and not a policy summary, I ask:
- That you vote in the poll on the talkpage
- State clearly what original opinions are being put forth
☯ Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, your claim here seems to contradict WP:BOLD. I changed a single sentence once and you accused me of violating consensus through "unilateral action." Let me be bold. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No one did tell me different. Somebody said, "This isn't a supplemental essay because it's not on WP:V or WP:User page", so I added it. They said it wasn't there, not that it shouldn't be. It's not an unnecessary expansion. It's a common sense clarification because, myself, I came across two users with credentials -- one of them was a sockpuppet who was probably lying, while the second person checked out. It's not explicitly stated on how people should treat credentials, but it's a big issue. The essjay controversy should be enough to establish that. I'm not trying to "get my way" on anything, because nothing I'm doing is my opinion on anything. All I'm doing is summarizing existing policy for sake of clarity.
- If I'm NOT doing that, then tell me: What opinion am I putting forth in my "essay"? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remember, everything on Misplaced Pages is recorded. You were told by Newbyguesses specifically why it is not a supplement. You ignored him, added the little mention, then reintroduced the tag anyway under a faulty rationale. You are either choosing to be ignorant or just being belligerent about the tag, neither of which will get you a favorable outcome. Common sense doesn't make a supplement, consensus does. The proposal has already been rejected in both positive and negative form. This is not consensus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
His claims baffled me and amount to nothing more than what you're saying, "There's no consensus, revert," which is an appeal to tradition.
Please, if it's an essay, vote in the poll provided and tell me what opinions I'm putting forth instead of just saying "No consensus, revert, No consensus, revert," etc.. Per WP:BRD, we're not going to go anywhere if you keep doing that. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The B in BRD is on your side. Therefore, the D is likewise on your side. In conclusion, we will not get anywhere if you keep doing that. It's only bold once. You're just trying to keep it in place while quoting things like "appeal to tradition" in an attempt to avoid building consensus. You'll find this behavior will fail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:BRD is something we do together, so that it is collaboration, not clobberation.
I bold, you revert, I discuss. You discuss too. Then either you or I bold based on our combined discussion, and the whole thing starts over again, with me or you possibly reverting again. Without your discussion and my discussion together, the whole thing can't work. WP:BRD is a combined effort and you're required to do more than just revert and say, "No consensus" in the revert summary. You're required to actually back up your revert with rational argument. You're an experienced editor. You know this! For now, I'll leave it alone and we can discuss this later when you're a bit more calm. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Article: Shinigami (Death Note)
The addition I have made seems to give a good description of the thoughts on "Light Yagami" being the mysterious Shinigami. It is true that there is speculation on this article. Looking at past records you have even stated this:
22:34, 17 January 2008 The Rogue Penguin (Talk | contribs) (12,232 bytes) (please stop, it's speculation)
The statement that it "is speculation" is a fact. Thus it has an appropriate place in the article until cited evidence stating that the Shinigami is not Light is found. I think that is fair and should incorporate all the views that have been given so far.
If you continue to say that a source is needed for speculation then just look around. There are plenty of past changes to that article that state that the Shinigami IS Light. Google it, you will find plenty of people who believe it, youtube has a very clear example of somebody who thinks that the Shinigami is Light: .
The idea of siting speculation is ridiculous. If more then one person thinks that it is or could be true then there is speculation.
Bokugakira (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:T2T Vizier.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:T2T Vizier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Article edit: Ichigo Kurosaki
What do you mean? You still haven't shared your point of view yet. I apologize for my previous attitude and would appreciate your reply.
Arexodius (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
order of the espada
i just saw that you reverted my edit (putting luppi at the end of the list). the reason i did that was so that people could easier see what the rankings of the current espada are. ordering the espada based on power (putting luppi after grimmjow) will mix the current espada with the ex-/dead espada. i don't think this way of ordering has any advantages compared to the ordering of the espada based on their ranknumbers. don't you agree that the majority of the visitors are probably wanting to see the current espada and their numbers? in the future, when other espadamembers are dead and replaced as well, the list will get even more 'polluted' because of the mixture of dead and current espada. my guess is that the visitors will be having a hard time figuring the ranknumbers out when that happens. well anyway, i just wanted to know your reason. thanks. Twsl (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Ok. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Leave us alone!
Leave me and User:JunKazamaFan alone! We're only trying to make the List of primary characters in Code Lyoko article better and longer, and you could messing up our work! So I strongly suggest that you leave the edits we write alone! Oh, and for the record, he is NOT a sockpuppet NOT meatpuppet! He is a friend that is trying to protect me from jerks like you! Angie Y. (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)